Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

next step in the jref-program:
If you have a problem with a witness-account, attack the witness personally.

It's not an attack. Just trying to determine what his level of qualifications are.

The title "building engineer" was used as if it conferred some higher level of certification to his story. I am merely pointing out that the title means nothing when it comes to collapses. (although he would be the one to call if your office was too hot or too cold).

How do you know, that the seismographs did register the plane impact and not the explosions in the underground? Show me your evidences for your conclusions.
My conclusion:
We know now, that the shifting of the foundation cannot be caused by the plane impact (the shaking of the towers was just as big as during medium wind loads). Therefore the shifting was most probably caused by an explosion, exactly in time with the plane impact, in the foundation. I have a plenty of confirmed explosions from B 1 to B5. Yes - even in B 5 in the underground station (many meters away away the shafts of the elevators), we have rubble, cave-in and destroyed walls.

So it is reasonable, to ...
1. ... believe the witness account of a shifting foundation,
2. ... to see the shifting confirmed by the seismographs and
3. ... to realize the existence of explosions, which cannot be explained by the "magic fireball theory".

__________________January 10, 2003, Senator Charles Grassley (R):
"not only has no one in government been fired or punished for 9/11, but several others have been promoted."

How do you know, that the seismographs did register the plane impact and not the explosions in the underground? Show me your evidences for your conclusions.
...

The planes did cause the ""Seismic Spikes""; no bombs, just planes; with some physics you could prove the intensity of the impacts at 1300 pounds and 2000 pounds of TNT KE (kinetic energy) were what they should be. But you seem bent on making up lies and not using science. So just make some junk up to sooth your paranoid conspiracy delusions.

There were no explosions from explosives on 911 because there were no blast death from high explosives, no blast effects from high explosives, and no sounds of high explosives. Plus you would see it in a "Seismic Spike". But don't let facts and reality slow down your train to fantasy-land.

The dumb part of explosives in the basement are those who said they heard them are alive; their brains should be mush but they all escaped. so now you have to add explosives the destroy buildings not people next to the blast. Does it take a special ignorance to make up the explosives lies; you did not fall for these lies did you?

Some bodies from 1000 feet sounded like explosives on 911 when they hit objects or killed other people on the ground on 911. How disrespectful can you get by making up delusional speculation on 911 with no evidence and failed opinions?

The Seismic Spikes of the aircraft prove no explosions if you can muster up some logic and do some physics. Remember the kinetic energy of the impacts were 1300 and 2000 pounds of TNT, as big in energy as the 93 bombing. Got physics? Review; I just said the seismic spikes refute your delusions on explosives; not to mention the people not blown up in the basement.

How do you know, that the seismographs did register the plane impact and not the explosions in the underground? Show me your evidences for your conclusions.
My conclusion:
We know now, that the shifting of the foundation cannot be caused by the plane impact (the shaking of the towers was just as big as during medium wind loads). Therefore the shifting was most probably caused by an explosion, exactly in time with the plane impact, in the foundation. I have a plenty of confirmed explosions from B 1 to B5. Yes - even in B 5 in the underground station (many meters away away the shafts of the elevators), we have rubble, cave-in and destroyed walls.

So it is reasonable, to ...
1. ... believe the witness account of a shifting foundation,
2. ... to see the shifting confirmed by the seismographs and
3. ... to realize the existence of explosions, which cannot be explained by the "magic fireball theory".

Evidence that bolded happen?
How underlined happen and how does it follows?
Bolded and underlined:Confirmed by whom?Having cherry picked witnesses and/or intentionally misrepresenting truth/evidence ? (Like claiming explosives but actually that was jetfuel explosion)

So your last points are again in the air hanging unsupported or outright debunked by posters here.
Why?Simple:

1.Is the said person engineer or other relevant expert?

2.Reading by seismograph does not imply shift of foundation.Since shift is unconfirmed therefore your argument fell apart.
And then you need to show correlation between seismograph and shift of foundation (especially timewise).

3.It is inverse:Fireball happened.But there is no evidence of explosives,either in rubble,in audio/video recordings,nor in the collapse itself and there is nothing CD-like as rubblem was over quite large area.

You'd need to show that fireball couldn't probably exist and/or couldn't cause extensive damage and I think I see there a strawman as nobody says fireball damaged structure enough to cause collapse.Long unfought fires are culprit.

And I suspect fireball was not large enough to cause foundation shift,so another possible strawman.

The planes did cause the ""Seismic Spikes""; no bombs, just planes; with some physics you could prove the intensity of the impacts at 1300 pounds and 2000 pounds of TNT KE (kinetic energy) were what they should be. But you seem bent on making up lies and not using science. So just make some junk up to sooth your paranoid conspiracy delusions.

There were no explosions from explosives on 911 because there were no blast death from high explosives, no blast effects from high explosives, and no sounds of high explosives. Plus you would see it in a "Seismic Spike". But don't let facts and reality slow down your train to fantasy-land.

The dumb part of explosives in the basement are those who said they heard them are alive; their brains should be mush but they all escaped. so now you have to add explosives the destroy buildings not people next to the blast. Does it take a special ignorance to make up the explosives lies; you did not fall for these lies did you?

Some bodies from 1000 feet sounded like explosives on 911 when they hit objects or killed other people on the ground on 911. How disrespectful can you get by making up delusional speculation on 911 with no evidence and failed opinions?

The Seismic Spikes of the aircraft prove no explosions if you can muster up some logic and do some physics. Remember the kinetic energy of the impacts were 1300 and 2000 pounds of TNT, as big in energy as the 93 bombing. Got physics? Review; I just said the seismic spikes refute your delusions on explosives; not to mention the people not blown up in the basement.

There are many witness accounts, which tell another story. The victims were hurt by bombs (a bomb can burn), like they expressed it.
Contributed by: Edward McCabe
Contributor's location on 9/11: sub basement 4 in 1 wtc
Contributed on: July 25, 2002 B 4,

"a woman seemed unharmed and i asked her what happened..she told me a bomb blew up their offices.when we got to the PATH platform i layed the woman down ,she thanked me,and i returned to the blown door to see if i could find anyone else.Sure enough there were more,.the smoke was being sucked up the shaft now and i can see there were no longer any walls just rubble."
http://old.911digitalarchive.org/stories/details/936

Based on such accounts try to reconsider - who is living in a "fantasy-world". ... or provide answers, how the fireball could destroy, kill and harm people many meters away from shafts 6/7 and 50, and in the same time could not destroy the cars, which were in the shafts 6, 7 and 50.

__________________January 10, 2003, Senator Charles Grassley (R):
"not only has no one in government been fired or punished for 9/11, but several others have been promoted."

There are many witness accounts, which tell another story. The victims were hurt by bombs (a bomb can burn), like they expressed it.
Contributed by: Edward McCabe
Contributor's location on 9/11: sub basement 4 in 1 wtc
Contributed on: July 25, 2002 B 4,

"a woman seemed unharmed and i asked her what happened..she told me a bomb blew up their offices.when we got to the PATH platform i layed the woman down ,she thanked me,and i returned to the blown door to see if i could find anyone else.Sure enough there were more,.the smoke was being sucked up the shaft now and i can see there were no longer any walls just rubble."
http://old.911digitalarchive.org/stories/details/936

Based on such accounts try to reconsider - who is living in a "fantasy-world". ... or provide answers, how the fireball could destroy, kill and harm people many meters away from shafts 6/7 and 50, and in the same time could not destroy the cars, which were in the shafts 6, 7 and 50.

Since when witnesses are reliable and sole evidence for anything.
Since when humans do describe reality accuratly without using comparsion,smile,imagination and are not trying to fill in anything missing.
Like:"There was explosion,but cause unkown.I don't know what it was but is probable it was some kind of bomb."

Often bombs are behind blasts or there is gas pipe,but people in WTC usually knew that gas wasn't there or any other ordinary exloding thing,so they assumed it was bomb.

There are many causes of blast-like events.Any evidence ruling out them and prooving explosives?

"a woman seemed unharmed and i asked her what happened..she told me a bomb blew up their offices.when we got to the PATH platform i layed the woman down ,she thanked me,and i returned to the blown door to see if i could find anyone else.Sure enough there were more,.the smoke was being sucked up the shaft now and i can see there were no longer any walls just rubble."
http://old.911digitalarchive.org/stories/details/936

How do you know, that the seismographs did register the plane impact and not the explosions in the underground? Show me your evidences for your conclusions.
My conclusion:
We know now, that the shifting of the foundation cannot be caused by the plane impact (the shaking of the towers was just as big as during medium wind loads). Therefore the shifting was most probably caused by an explosion, exactly in time with the plane impact, in the foundation. I have a plenty of confirmed explosions from B 1 to B5. Yes - even in B 5 in the underground station (many meters away away the shafts of the elevators), we have rubble, cave-in and destroyed walls.

So it is reasonable, to ...
1. ... believe the witness account of a shifting

Before anyone brings up the possibility of some form of hush-a-boom that could destroy steel without creating a seismic signiture, I will point out that the impacts of the aircraft registered on seismographs, yet was not adequate to sever more than a few columns. There is a signal from the inititation cf collapse, and it builds gradually. The next large spikes begin to occur when debris begins hitting the ground. There is, thus, no possibility of demolitions charges, according to seismographic evidence available.

There are many witness accounts, which tell another story. The victims were hurt by bombs (a bomb can burn), like they expressed it.
Contributed by: Edward McCabe
Contributor's location on 9/11: sub basement 4 in 1 wtc
Contributed on: July 25, 2002 B 4,

"a woman seemed unharmed and i asked her what happened..she told me a bomb blew up their offices.when we got to the PATH platform i layed the woman down ,she thanked me,and i returned to the blown door to see if i could find anyone else.Sure enough there were more,.the smoke was being sucked up the shaft now and i can see there were no longer any walls just rubble."
http://old.911digitalarchive.org/stories/details/936

Based on such accounts try to reconsider - who is living in a "fantasy-world". ... or provide answers, how the fireball could destroy, kill and harm people many meters away from shafts 6/7 and 50, and in the same time could not destroy the cars, which were in the shafts 6, 7 and 50.

Why would they set off a bomb an hour before the building collapsed? Did it take that long for the pressure wave to travel thru the bldg? If there were bombs in the basement why does the tower collapse at the plane impact point?

Why would they set off a bomb an hour before the building collapsed? Did it take that long for the pressure wave to travel thru the bldg? If there were bombs in the basement why does the tower collapse at the plane impact point?

Dr Jones did it with his time release super-nano-thermite bomb; destroys buildings not people and blast effects mimic an ordinary fire and gravity collapse.

Are you trusting the witness-accounts more than the studies of NIST?
I mean, NIST found out, that the shaking of the building (due to the plane impact) was not greater, than during medium winds.

In this case trust I both the witnesses, including McCabe, and NIST. The calculations of NIST in NCSTAR 1-2 showed that the towers bending due to the aircraft impacts were well within the design limits. The towers were designed to withstand hurricane force winds. But what is obvious here is that you do not understand the difference between wind pushing against the tower and the sudden impact of an aircraft. A difference that was very, very evident to the witnesses inside WTC 1.

That McCabe felt the floor shake is only reasonable given the fact that he stood on a floor only about 30 feet away from the exterior columns of WTC 1.

There is no need to move into fantasy land to explain what happened down on B4 as you do Bio.

And regarding the account of McCabe, do you understand what a simile is Bio, or do we have to explain it to you just like BBC had to explain it to Dylan Avery?

There are many witness accounts, which tell another story. The victims were hurt by bombs (a bomb can burn), like they expressed it.
Contributed by: Edward McCabe
Contributor's location on 9/11: sub basement 4 in 1 wtc
Contributed on: July 25, 2002 B 4,

"a woman seemed unharmed and i asked her what happened..she told me a bomb blew up their offices.when we got to the PATH platform i layed the woman down ,she thanked me,and i returned to the blown door to see if i could find anyone else.Sure enough there were more,.the smoke was being sucked up the shaft now and i can see there were no longer any walls just rubble."
http://old.911digitalarchive.org/stories/details/936

Based on such accounts try to reconsider - who is living in a "fantasy-world". ... or provide answers, how the fireball could destroy, kill and harm people many meters away from shafts 6/7 and 50, and in the same time could not destroy the cars, which were in the shafts 6, 7 and 50.

Yes the cars were destroyed, the shaft doors were blown out, the elevator car doors blown into the cars and the elevator cars were burned. How destroyed do you want them to be. The doors were the weak points, when they pop the pressure inside and outside the elevator car is equalized. If you read post #492 you would have understood that the pressure inside the shafts within seconds of the aircraft impact would have climbed to a level where some of the doors down the shaft started to blow out of the shaft or into the elevator cars. Any pressure increase would move down the shaft with the speed of sound far ahead of the jetfuel cloud itself and ahead of elevator car 50 falling down the shaft. Sometime later the remains of the oxygen starved jet fuel cloud is forced out of one or both of the elevator shaft doors down on B4, deflagrating in the corridor while increasing the pressure to a level were partition walls are toppled over. Now when I have explained this to you, maybe you now are able to understand the witness accounts from the basement levels:Inside the North Tower: Witness Accounts, Plaza Level & Concourse Lobbies, Basements

Then it is high time to take a hard look at Gravy's excellent Truther Response Flow Chart that Gravy posted last year, and conclude that there is no progress here. Four pages have been added to this thread since it resurfaced at the beginning of this month without any sign of progress on the truther side, quiet the contrary. It is time to go to the beach instead of wasting time on incurable truthers in this thread.

2. Determine how the fireball, if that is what you truly think caused the damage in the basement areas, had enough energy to cause the local destruction witnessed at impact, and yet not destroy the shafts on the way down to the basement, and then have the energy to destroy parts of the basement areas underneath both towers.

Doesn't answer anything. Why would you have ressurected a Swing Dangler post in the first place?

His question was answered in a post just above this one somewhere. There was massive damage to the shafts. But there was little air inside the shafts and the amount of fuel left was not significant. the backdraft in that confined space would not have been very energetic. But a larger amount of fuel, with more oxygen, in an area like the lobby of basements would, of neccessity, produce a more significant blast and flames.

__________________No civilization ever collapsed because the poor had too much to eat.

Hello everyone. It's been awhile. I just thought I would repost an old argument, that still remains to be debunked. It proves that the official narrative is wrong with relation to the cause of the basement explosion...I wonder what else they are wrong about?

Originally Posted by thewholesoul

William Rodriguez: "How could a jetliner hit 90 floors above and burn a man's arms and face to a crisp in the basement below within seconds of impact?"

(2c) Its hard to know exactly how long it took car 50 to reach B1. From Griffiths testimony we learn that the elevator ascended for 5-7 seconds. But let us only use the most generous estimation, that being 7 seconds. Freight elevators in the twin towers were gearless traction machines and could reach speeds of roughly 10 m/s http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elevato...ist_mechanisms car 50 then ascended 7 seconds at 10m/s thus it ascended approx 70m. Each floor is approx. 3.8m so 70m = approx. 18 floors. From Griffith’s testimony we learn that the elevator fell at least 15-16 floors before the emergency brakes caught. So that fits in nicely.

To my mind, car 50 ascended 18 floors. when the cables were cut it then free falled 15-16 floors before the emergency brakes caught and the car skidded a further 2-3 floors before terminating just below B1. So I would estimate that it took car 50 no more than 10 seconds to reach B1. I welcome anyone with precise calculations based on the information we already possess.

(4a) Standing in front of the freight elevator on B1 Felipe David recalls:

http://911stories.googlepages.com/in...ccounts%2Clobb
A free-falling elevator car is audibly detectable. Felipe however did not hear the car falling towards him. That means that the cables were not cut yet from the impact of flight 11 and that car 50 was above him.

We know that elevator car 50 did free fall down the freight elevator shaft so it seems very likely that Morelli’s assumption was correct. Given that the first explosion was heard below David and above Morelli and also given the behaviour of the building following the explosion in both David’s and Morelli’s testimony it seems reasonable to assume that they were in fact describing the same explosion.

Assuming then that it was the same explosion we know that car 50 was above David because Morelli heard the freight car falling for some time after the explosion had occured. Now the obvious reason David did not notice or report hearing a freight car falling after the explosion is because he was lying on the floor in extreme pain thinking he was going to die.

(4c) Because the occupants of car 50 did not receive burn injuries from intense heat it seems highly likely that car 50 was some distance above David who did recieve burn injuries from an explosion he experienced below him.

[Conclusion]
According to the above argument the official fireball explanation and the unofficial JREF unignited jet fuel explanation must be rejected because they are simply NOT POSSIBLE because the jet fuel cannot physically descend the 90+ floors quick enough to cause an explosion below car 50 before it reaches B1. This is essentially the problem implicit in William Rodriguez's quotation above. The falling debris explanation can also be dismissed for the simple reason that falling debirs does not burn peoples skin. so lets see it again:

the pressure inside the shafts within seconds of the aircraft impact would have climbed to a level where some of the doors down the shaft started to blow out of the shaft or into the elevator cars. Any pressure increase would move down the shaft with the speed of sound far ahead of the jetfuel cloud itself and ahead of elevator car 50 falling down the shaft. Sometime later the remains of the oxygen starved jet fuel cloud is forced out of one or both of the elevator shaft doors down on B4, deflagrating in the corridor while increasing the pressure to a level were partition walls are toppled over. Now when I have explained this to you, maybe you now are able to understand the witness accounts from the basement levels:Inside the North Tower: Witness Accounts, Plaza Level & Concourse Lobbies, Basements

Hey norseman , I can't believe you are still here my friend? I don't understand, correct me if I am wrong, but I thought solid metal objects fell faster than liquid droplets or gas clouds???

Hello everyone. It's been awhile. I just thought I would repost an old argument, that still remains to be debunked. It proves that the official narrative is wrong with relation to the cause of the basement explosion...I wonder what else they are wrong about?

An aircraft caused the damage; kind of debunks anything 9/11 truth has. What caused the burns and damage in your story of 9/11?

There were no no bombs, no thermite, no other BS that 9/11 truth lies about, and never had evidence.

Thus anything 9/11 truth dreams up about what happened, is debunked because there is no evidence. Thus this remains debunked, whatever this is.

[Conclusion]
According to the above argument the official fireball explanation and the unofficial JREF unignited jet fuel explanation must be rejected because they are simply NOT POSSIBLE because the jet fuel cannot physically descend the 90+ floors quick enough to cause an explosion below car 50 before it reaches B1. This is essentially the problem implicit in William Rodriguez's quotation above. The falling debris explanation can also be dismissed for the simple reason that falling debirs does not burn peoples skin. so lets see it again:

Neither do bombs or explosives. What's your explanation for that?

__________________Ask questions. Demand answers. But be prepared to accept the answers, or don't ask questions in the first place.

Hello everyone. It's been awhile. I just thought I would repost an old argument, that still remains to be debunked. It proves that the official narrative is wrong with relation to the cause of the basement explosion...I wonder what else they are wrong about?

Willie Rodriguez doesn't believe that stuff now and has recanted much of this now that he understands what happened. You'll have to hunt down his exchanges over on "Screw Loose Change", but he no loner thinks there were bombs.

Hello everyone. It's been awhile. I just thought I would repost an old argument, that still remains to be debunked. It proves that the official narrative is wrong with relation to the cause of the basement explosion...I wonder what else they are wrong about?

The thesis that a bomb in the basement caused the collapse of the towers 90 infernal floors above an hour later requires further explication.
Please flesh out this Loon of the gaps.

__________________In Your Guts You Know They're Nuts. "There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true." -Kierkegaard . "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. "- Marcus Aurelius
A Truther is a True Believer convinced by lies. You can't reason someone out of a thing they weren't reasoned into.

Willie Rodriguez doesn't believe that stuff now and has recanted much of this now that he understands what happened. You'll have to hunt down his exchanges over on "Screw Loose Change", but he no loner thinks there were bombs.

Try to keep current.

They got to him.

__________________Handy responses to conspiracy theorists' claims:
1) "I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." --Charles Babbage
2) "This isn't right. This isn't even wrong." --Wolfgang Pauli
3) "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." --Inigo Montoya

Bombs in the basement may be implausible to many in this room, but i will take implausible over impossible every single time. And so should any RATIONAL human being.

The problem here is your "impossible" is based on timing derived from accounts made after the fact. As you know, memory is not like a video capture. Time is one of the elements that seems to suffer greatly in high stress situations. Witnesses routinely describe in seconds events that actually take much longer. I'm sure you know this but I can reference studies to support this fact.

So, in this case I would go with known facts.

Fuel laden aircraft hit the towers.
The fuel was seen to ignite.
There was a path for fuel to travel to the lower levels.
There was no reports of blast effect trauma on any of the burn victims.

To me the facts point to a fuel/air deflagration rather than a high order explosion.

Originally Posted by thewholesoul

peace

To you as well.

__________________"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41

Willie Rodriguez doesn't believe that stuff now and has recanted much of this now that he understands what happened. You'll have to hunt down his exchanges over on "Screw Loose Change", but he no loner thinks there were bombs.

Try to keep current.

Indeed, in an early TV interview, Willie described it quite simply as "the fireball."

Hello everyone. It's been awhile. I just thought I would repost an old argument, that still remains to be debunked. It proves that the official narrative is wrong with relation to the cause of the basement explosion...I wonder what else they are wrong about?

Why are you so focused on the jet fuel that traveled downward (as all things tend to when in a gravity field)?

Check out the fireball outside WTC-2 when Flight 175 hit it. It extends well above the point of impact, which means what? That it traveled upward in defiance of the law of gravity!

How do you know, that the seismographs did register the plane impact and not the explosions in the underground? Show me your evidences for your conclusions.
My conclusion:
We know now, that the shifting of the foundation cannot be caused by the plane impact (the shaking of the towers was just as big as during medium wind loads). Therefore the shifting was most probably caused by an explosion, exactly in time with the plane impact, in the foundation. I have a plenty of confirmed explosions from B 1 to B5. Yes - even in B 5 in the underground station (many meters away away the shafts of the elevators), we have rubble, cave-in and destroyed walls.

So it is reasonable, to ...
1. ... believe the witness account of a shifting foundation,
2. ... to see the shifting confirmed by the seismographs and
3. ... to realize the existence of explosions, which cannot be explained by the "magic fireball theory".

1. witness accounts need to be backed up by other evidence.
Witness accounts can differ without anyone lying. They are telling what they "believe" occurred.
ex: witness 1 says victim was shot in the back by a police officer.
witness 2 says victim was shot in the front by a police officer
medical examiner determines victim was hit by 1 gun shot from the front.

2. It is your burden to prove it was a CD if that is what you believe. Each explanation should stand on its own merits.

The problem I have with the CD explanation is there is no one concise explanation. We have C4, thermite, nanothermite, nukes, mini neutron bombs, combination of explosives and last but not least the energy beam weapon. Gage disagrees with Prager, Prager disagrees with Gage. Wood is laughed at. So who is correct?

I have yet to see any convincing proof or explanation of the CD of WTC1,2,7.

The problem here is your "impossible" is based on timing derived from accounts made after the fact. As you know, memory is not like a video capture. Time is one of the elements that seems to suffer greatly in high stress situations. Witnesses routinely describe in seconds events that actually take much longer. I'm sure you know this but I can reference studies to support this fact.

So, in this case I would go with known facts.

Fuel laden aircraft hit the towers.
The fuel was seen to ignite.
There was a path for fuel to travel to the lower levels.
There was no reports of blast effect trauma on any of the burn victims.

To me the facts point to a fuel/air deflagration rather than a high order explosion.

To you as well.

The smoking gun to any close proximity explosive detonations is injury consistent with blast trauma and hearing impairment from the noise levels. I recall when I used to be active in this section a number of times pointing out how even in safely controlled demolitions people have sustained serious injuries on rare occaisions from ejected debris several hundred yards distant from the actual demolition sites. Though burns can be life threatening its the least of concerns with an explosive device... anyone that has even paid attention to the news about suicide bombings overseas knows that they can seriously mame the human body. To me its not a question of whether or not explosives were ever plausible, the added consideration for the known effects of close proximity explosions on the human body and the behavior of fuel deflageration doesnt support the interpretation of eye witness testimony being a smoking gun for bombs in the basement levels. So indeed... going with the collective of known facts... theres no support for explosives. Thewholesouls line of thinking is too narrow

I know it to be a pattern with these conspiracy theories to latch onto isolated witness statements without the expanded thoughts about other factors that complete the collective evidence

Hello everyone. It's been awhile. I just thought I would repost an old argument, that still remains to be debunked. It proves that the official narrative is wrong with relation to the cause of the basement explosion...I wonder what else they are wrong about?

Then you've been wrong twice for the same price.

Might want to do a little research into how flammable fuel expands when ignited. it's why flammable fuels can produce power while ignited in the combustion chamber of an engine. A little bit of fuel that's atomized (which is exactly what happened when the aircraft's fuel tanks were shredded) creates a hell of a lot of pressure.

Good primer on comparison of relative energy - it's not perfectly correct. There no way to throw a 120 grain 7.62 mm slug out of a 39 mm long case at 3,000 fps.

The general info wrt to the comparative energies of explosives is in the ballpark. Jet fuel (kerosene) dispersed into the air is going to burn hot and fast and the release energy would also cause a certain amount (far less than HE in a longer time-frame) of over pressure.

Once the fuel-air mixture was in the elevator shafts all it took was one good ignition source and that material was expanding into what ever was the path of least resistance and causing a certain amount of blast damage. Far less than what HE would cause but blast damage none-the-less.

__________________"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." - Col. Jeff Cooper, U.S.M.C.

The smoking gun to any close proximity explosive detonations is injury consistent with blast trauma and hearing impairment from the noise levels. I recall when I used to be active in this section a number of times pointing out how even in safely controlled demolitions people have sustained serious injuries on rare occaisions from ejected debris several hundred yards distant from the actual demolition sites. Though burns can be life threatening its the least of concerns with an explosive device... anyone that has even paid attention to the news about suicide bombings overseas knows that they can seriously mame the human body. To me its not a question of whether or not explosives were ever plausible, the added consideration for the known effects of close proximity explosions on the human body and the behavior of fuel deflageration doesnt support the interpretation of eye witness testimony being a smoking gun for bombs in the basement levels. So indeed... going with the collective of known facts... theres no support for explosives. Thewholesouls line of thinking is too narrow

I know it to be a pattern with these conspiracy theories to latch onto isolated witness statements without the expanded thoughts about other factors that complete the collective evidence

Explosives in general is Big Voodoo to most CTists, and they generally are very limited in any type of knowledge about the subject matter.

All you need to do is read their various versions of the effects of Thermite, Thermate, Nano-Thermite, Super Nano Thermite, Banana Fana Fo Fana Thermite, ad infinitum.

I once attempted IRL to explain the difference between typical low order explosives, primary high explosives and secondary high explosives to a CTist w/ the 9/11 CD fixation.

I would have had better results from teaching my cat mathematics.

They could not grasp the fact that any secondary high explosives in the WTC would have burned away by the fire - when I tried to explain that burning is the approved method of disposal for secondary high explosives that are out of expiration (another great revelation to untrained persons, don't get me started) they rejected the notion out of hand.

__________________"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." - Col. Jeff Cooper, U.S.M.C.

Explosives in general is Big Voodoo to most CTists, and they generally are very limited in any type of knowledge about the subject matter.

All you need to do is read their various versions of the effects of Thermite, Thermate, Nano-Thermite, Super Nano Thermite, Banana Fana Fo Fana Thermite, ad infinitum.

I once attempted IRL to explain the difference between typical low order explosives, primary high explosives and secondary high explosives to a CTist w/ the 9/11 CD fixation.

I would have had better results from teaching my cat mathematics.

They could not grasp the fact that any secondary high explosives in the WTC would have burned away by the fire - when I tried to explain that burning is the approved method of disposal for secondary high explosives that are out of expiration (another great revelation to untrained persons, don't get me started) they rejected the notion out of hand.

I'm aware. Dealing with direct impacts of explosives on the human body is a narrow field specific to certain aspects of his and other's specific claims. There's also - as you point out - the effect of the fires and impacts on any devices that we can fantasize as having been planted. We can also point out how there was no collapse initiation from the bottom of the building, how they've photoshopped pictures of the recovery work, or photomined pictures out of context. I also Remember Tony's fixation on no "present dynamic loading" during the collapse, or his fixation with literal representation of limiting case models. Or thewholesoul's effort to make his arguments sound like they've been articulated with reasoning and knowledge.

The argument has and continues to be them separating the impacts from the fires, and the secondary effect of the tower collapses on the surrounding infrastructure if we're dealing with WTC 7's case. They focus on isolated detail refuse to acknowledge the connective web of information that explains everything they question...

So at this point... I just let the die hards believe what they want, and I'll just answer questions to those I think have a realistic chance of understanding the issues